Thursday, January 29, 2015

The Graduate Center of the City University of New York issued a memo advising staff not to address any students as “Mr., Mrs. or Ms.” beginning this spring because some could find it disrespectful.

The policy is intended to “ensure a respectful, welcoming and gender-inclusive learning environment . . . and to accommodate properly the diverse population of current and prospective students,” according to the memo, signed by interim provost Louise Lennihan.

School spokeswoman (wait – can I call her that?) Tanya Domi said the initiative was also part of the school’s “working within a regulatory framework to comply with Title IX legal principles,” which forbid discrimination based on sex at any institution receiving federal funding.

(Yes, the viewpoint that calling someone “Mr.” could ever be considered a violation of federal policy is terrifying.)

But attorney and Title IX consultant Saundra Schuster insisted to the Wall Street Journal that CUNY’s new policy isn’t necessary for complying with the law. ”They are not mandated to do this,” she said.

While we may not agree with all speech we come across, it is important for liberty-minded individuals to defend all constitutionally protected speech. If we do not protect speech that we may not agree with, or that is of limited importance to us, there will be fewer people willing to defend speech that we care deeply about. Also, once the Supreme Court rules some speech can be restricted and still withstand constitutional scrutiny, it becomes easier for the Court to rule other speech can be restricted as well.

On January 20 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar. This case is important because the petitioner (Williams-Yulee) is appealing to the Supreme Court to protect her free speech right to personally ask for campaign funds when running for judicial office. This case is especially important because around half of the states currently ban personal solicitations by judicial candidates and there is a split within the state and circuit courts over whether the First Amendment allows such bans.

The origin of this case was Hillsborough County (Tampa) Florida in 2009, when Lanell Williams-Yulee decided to run for a judicial position in the county. As part of her campaign, she approved and signed a mass mailing that asked for funds to help her run her campaign. The Florida Bar deemed that by doing so she violated a rule against “personally soliciting campaign contributions.” The Referee handling the case decided that she should be publicly reprimanded and pay around $1,800 to cover the costs of bringing the case against her.

The case was then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court where Ms. Williams-Yulee argued the ban on personally soliciting campaign funds improperly limited her right to free speech. The Florida Supreme Court agreed that the ban clearly did restrict free speech but ruled against Ms. Williams-Yulee because the ban passed their strict scrutiny test.

Charlie Hebdo killers should NOT be called 'terrorists', claims BBC executive Tarik Kafala

Tarik is no doubt a Muslim

The Parisian extremists who murdered 17 people in a series of attacks including the Charlie Hebdo massacre should not be called 'terrorists', a senior BBC executive has said.

Tarik Kafala, who runs BBC Arabic, said the term 'terrorist' was too 'loaded' and 'value-laden' to describe Said and Cherif Kouachi and their accomplice Amedy Coulibaly.

The Kouachi brothers shot dead 12 at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris and Coulibaly killed four at a Kosher deli after shooting dead a policewoman.

All three were eventually shot dead by French special forces after the Islamists all burst out of their hideouts two weeks ago.

Mr Kafalam runs the BBC's largest non-English language TV, radio and online news services, which have a weekly audience of 36million people.

He told The Independent: 'We try to avoid describing anyone as a terrorist or an act as being terrorist. What we try to do is to say that 'two men killed 12 people in an attack on the office of a satirical magazine'. That's enough.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Named after SS Nazi war criminal: World's largest ship sparks outrage as it arrives in Europe

The arrival of the world's largest ship in Europe has provoked outrage after it was revealed it was named after a SS Nazi war criminal.

The Pieter Schelte, which is so big it can lift oil rigs out of the water, is docked in Rotterdam after being constructed at the Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering shipyard in South Korea.

But as Holocaust Memorial Day nears, anger has erupted after it was revealed Pieter Schelte Heerema was a Dutch officer in the Waffen SS.

The vice president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush told the Observer: 'Naming such a ship after an SS officer who was convicted of war crimes is an insult to the millions who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis. 'We urge the ship's owners to reconsider and rename the ship after someone more appropriate.'

Schelte was the father of Dutchman Edward Heerema, the owner of company Allseas, who commissioned the building of the ship.

He was an officer in the Waffen SS during the Second World War, when he acted as a director for the Dutch East Company.

It is thought he was responsible for recruiting Dutch men to be put into forced labour in Nazi-occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

However, he is reported to have left the SS in 1944 as he lost sympathy with the Nazis and joined a resistance party, fleeing to Switzerland.

He was tried and sentenced to three years in prison for war crimes after the war but was released early and went to Venezuela where he set up a engineering company.

The recent terror attacks in Paris have led to a barrage of anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant comments on the Facebook pages of federal politicians and their parties in Canada — much of it plainly visible to the public.

Managing racist, sexist, homophobic and harassing material is just one of the new challenges facing parties who want to have an active social media presence, grounded in the concept of free speech and open dialogue.

A Jan. 7 post on Stephen Harper’s Facebook account, in which the prime minister said he was “horrified by the barbaric attacks in France,” received approximately 575 comments. Some six dozen — expressing support for blocking immigration from Islamic countries, closing Canada’s borders or just criticizing Islam — were still on the page more than two weeks later.

How shocking! Islam was criticized in light of the of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre! Because naturally it had nothing to do with Islam.

Oh the horror! People actually questioned the wisdom of allowing immigration from Islamic nations! Forgive my hatefulness but I wonder if that has anything to do with the daily litany of horror that Islam visits upon the world?

But the most awful horrid hateful thing was that some people actually discussed closing our borders! Next those citizens will want rights like free-speech!

A flight passenger who complained an airline was only hiring 'short fat girls' as stewardesses has been shamed by social media users after the company hit back at his 'prejudice' online.

In the post sent directly to Argentina Airlines' Facebook page, the man noted the 'low quality' of airline stewardesses and bemoaned the fact that the company appeared to only be hiring 'short fat girls'.

He originally wrote: 'What gets my attention is the low quality of flight attendants that the company has. Before they were tall, nice. Now they only take short fat girls.'

The airline's social media promptly responded, listing the requirements for the role and noting 'prejudice doesn't fly, we leave it on the ground'.

Its requirements include that they're older than 18 and are between 5'4" and 5'7" tall. They must also be an Argentinian citizen who has graduated high school, knows how to swim, can speak English and has the necessary training qualification.

The response soon went viral on Facebook and Twitter and was retweeted hundreds of times as people celebrated the airline's riposte.

One user wrote alongside a picture of the exchange: 'Excellent! #AerolineasArgentinas' amazing response to passenger (who) complained about physical appearance of the flight attendants.'

Friday, January 23, 2015

A hotel in Queensland has had their Gumtree job advertisement removed because it asked for full length photographs of applicants.

Ravenswood Imperial Hotel in northern Queensland posted an advert on the classifieds website three weeks ago, prompting moderators to remove the ad.

Pub owner John Schluter stands by the employing process, saying that the need for well-presented employees is the same in every industry.

‘We need to know they’re compatible for the pub. If the girls are 4’2 and they can’t see over the bar that obviously isn’t going to work’ he said.

The ad sparked outcry on social media, where some have claimed it encourages discrimination

‘It’s offbeat to the customers who have just worked 12 hour shifts if the employees are daggy or poorly dressed. We get people here from all over the world.’

While The Fair Work Act does not deny employees the right to ask for a photo, it is considered unlawful to discriminate against employees over their race, colour, sex, age, physical or mental disability or marital status.

But Mr Schluter said this has been the hotels employment policy for some time. ‘We’ve been doing this for eight years, and I’m not sure why it’s an issue. We run a careful establishment here and I can’t have anyone looking unkempt,’ he said.

Freedom of expression in Canada is normally a dry legal concept, sporadically explored by law professors in dense papers, and taken for granted by everyone else. Until now, if freedom of expression got any attention at all, it was fleeting and superficial, like a bumper sticker on a passing car. The terrorist attacks in France and their aftermath changed all that, giving freedom of expression an extended tenure in the limelight and popular consciousness.

But the discussion in Canada so far fails to address the unique Canadian approach to freedom of expression, and thus fails to ask a crucial Canadian question. Does freedom of expression as legally defined in Canada provide the right tools for expression challenges in a fragmented and largely angry 21st century social media world?

Canadian freedom of expression law, like so many things Canadian, embodies compromise. In the United States, even the most hateful, virile and destructive speech is constitutionally protected. In many other countries, expression is suppressed if politically problematic. We walk between those extremes.

Here you can be put in jail for hate speech. But before you condemn the prospect of jail for speaking your mind, consider the built-in limits to the hate speech law. There are seven of them, and together they pour a big pail of cold water on any over-zealous prosecutor intent on duct-taping your mouth. For a prosecution to go ahead, all of these conditions must be met:

1. The hate speech must be the most severe of the genre;

2. The hate speech must be targeted to an identifiable group;

3. It must be public;

4. It must be deliberate, not careless;

5. Excluded from hate speech are good faith interpretations of religious doctrine, discussion of issues of public interest, and literary devices like sarcasm and irony;

6. The statements must be hateful when considered in their social and historical context;

7. No prosecution can proceed without approval of the attorney-general, which introduces political accountability because the attorney-general is a cabinet minister.

Even with these limits, the Canadian hate law still clearly curtails free expression.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

A thought

The federal government, which has " Tomahawk" cruise missiles and "Apache," "Blackhawk," "Kiowa" and "Lakota" helicopters - and used the code name "Geronimo" in the attack that killed Osama bin Laden, officially objects to the name of the "Washington Redskins."

A University of New Brunswick vice-president is defending a professor's academic freedom in the wake of a recent complaint of racism.

Kerry Jang, a Vancouver city councillor, had asked the university to investigate the allegedly racist views of Prof. Ricardo Duchesne, who argues that the influx of Asian immigrants is threatening Canada's European character. Jang contends the sociology professor’s comments constitute hate speech.

But in an emailed statement to CBC News on Wednesday, MacKinnon said Jang's concerns were "carefully reviewed and addressed last summer."

"Academic freedom is a foundational principle of university life," he said. "The university statement of mission and values very clearly supports the freedom of thought and expression while maintaining the highest ethical standards and a respectful environment."

​Duchesne, a professor in the department of social science at UNB Saint John, said he challenges students to rethink the values of multiculturalism. "Why are people so afraid that they don't want people like me to talk?" he said.

Duchesne's published academic work exalts Western culture, which, he says, is threatened by overwhelming numbers of immigrants.

He said immigrants don't respect white liberals, who don't take pride in their own nation and hand over everything.

"Sweden had practically no rape. Suddenly, they open their borders, they have one of the highest rape statistics in the world," he said. "In Norway, it's happening, the same thing."

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Art Spiegelman Criticizes US Press Over Charlie Hebdo Political Correctness

Pulitzer Prize-winning comic artist Art Spiegelman has recently spoken out against the decision of many US media outlets to not republish the cartoons that were featured in Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical publication that was attacked on January 7 (see 12 Killed at Magazine Previously Attacked for Satirical Cartoons).

"I think it's so hypocritical to drape yourself in freedom of speech and then self-censor yourself to the point where you are not making your readers understand the issues," Spiegelman told the AFP. "That cartoon was not making fun of the prophet, it was excoriating the believers who would kill."

Media outlets such as the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, and NBC News have refused to show images of the cover from the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo. (see "Are Cartoons More Powerful Than Art?") News outlets have resorted to blurring and cropping photographs of the now famous image of Muhammad holding a sign that reads "Je Suis Charlie" to hide potentially offensive material, leading Spiegelman to argue that journalists are choosing political correctness over freedom of speech.

A super-fit mum has come under fire for 'fat-shaming' women - after she posted a picture of her six-pack on Instagram.

Fitness fanatic, Abby Pell, 33, from East Grinstead, East Sussex, thought she was helping encourage others to lose post-pregnancy weight when she shared the picture of her posing with her daughter. She included the message 'I have a kid, a six pack and no excuse.'

But instead of support, the mum-of-one was branded 'shameless' by scores of people and met with abuse from her followers.

Dedicated mum Abby manages to juggle motherhood and running her own nutrition business while still hitting the gym up to six days a week.

Abby turned to intense weight training taking just a year to sculpt her impressive abs, after she ballooned to 13 stone when she was pregnant with daughter Bella, now six, and struggled to lose shed the extra 50lb.

'I decided to have just one last push, so I started lifting weights, and I was astonished at the results that came so quickly. 'My bum was firmer, arms more defined and my abs were showing. 'Now going to the gym is where I have my 'me-time,' which all mums know they need.'

Abby, who now weighs 9st and is a size eight, says she feels better now than before she was pregnant.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Homosexuality must be celebrated, not rejected

A controversial new show on TLC is sparking wave after wave of protests — as thousands of people ask for the cancellation of the TV special featuring a group of Mormon men who say they're attracted to other men but chose to marry women because of their faith.

John Sanders — who launched a Change.org petition asking for 'My Husband's Not Gay' to be axed — says 'the false and dangerous idea that gay people can and should choose to be straight in order to be part of their faith communities.'

'I started this petition because these men deserve compassion and acceptance,' says Sanders, who has himself been a devout Christian who went through 'ex-gay' therapy and was told to 'pray the gay away' in the past.

In the show, a group of happily married Mormon men have admitted that they are attracted to their own sex - yet they refuse to identify as gay because of their devout faith.

These unconventional marriages are the focus of a new TLC special called My Husband's Not Gay, set in Salt Lake City, which follows three such couples and their single friend, Tom, who is seeking a wife despite his own sexual attraction to men.

Hysteria about "genocide". Indians were certainly oppressed but they are still around: So no genocide. I would have thought that adopting Indian garb expressed solidarity with them

Pixie Lott has been slammed after she wore a feathered headdress to celebrate her 24th birthday with a cowboys and Indians themed party in London, on Saturday night.

She chose a Tiger Lily costume, inspired by the Native American princess from Peter Pan but it soon landed her in hot water after she posted a picture and wrote: 'Tigerlily is out to play tonight for final BDAY celebrations #cowboys #indians'.

Previous stars who have donned Indian headdresses - including Pharrell Williams, Khloe Kardashian and Ellie Goulding - have found themselves being blasted for being 'insensitive' and Pixie was no different.

Within minutes of sharing a snap on Instagram, people were quick to lash out, with one horrified person fuming: 'I don't see how the genocide of many many many people is a "party theme".'

Another sarcastically added: 'Wowww cuz dressing up as people who have been wipped out is soooo cool. Why dont you dress up as the slaves next! Let's have a slave themed party!'

And one person blasted: 'Pixie Lott, cultural Appropriation isn't cute. Not even on your birthday. Terrible party "theme".'

Monday, January 19, 2015

Two Canadian police officers have been shot near Edmonton, Alberta and the suspect is still at large, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said on Saturday.

The two officers were being treated in hospital. One of the officers was in "very grave condition" and the other was in serious but stable condition, Assistant Commissioner Marlin Degrand said during a news conference. He said the manhunt was a "dynamic and unfolding event."

The shooting happened around 3am local time in St Albert, Alberta, a community northwest of the provincial capital of Edmonton.

Degrand said the officers were shot inside the Apex Casino in St. Albert, which was open at the time of the incident, while investigating a stolen car parked at the location.

The hunt for the unidentified gunman was continuing. He was considered "armed and dangerous." The shooter was described as a white male between the ages of 25 and 35, wearing a two-toned blue striped jacket and jeans.

Weight loss expert under fire for launching Tell A Friend They're Fat Day

A weight loss expert has been slammed by plus-size campaigners for his new project: Warn A Friend They're Fat Day.

TV star Steve Miller, presenter of the TV show Fat Families, had designated today as the day for Britons to tell close friends or family members that they are overweight.

But the move has been widely criticised, with members of the plus-size community saying the scheme amounts to fat-shaming and bullying.

Steve floated the idea of Warn A Friend They're Fat Day late last year and even wrote a letter to the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt about the issue. The idea is for people to bring up the issue of obesity with a close friend or family member who is overweight.

The person would then offer to become an exercise buddy if their friend does decide to try and shift some pounds as a result of the conversation.

Steve claims that the initiative could save thousands of lives. He told FEMAIL: 'This day is about saving lives, it is absolutely not about humiliating people.

'I know that the word fat sounds harsh but when you use that word, people take notice - if you wrap the issue up in cotton wool, it doesn't work.'

Sunday, January 18, 2015

The head of the Professional Footballers' Association is facing calls to resign after comparing the plight of convicted rapist Ched Evans to the Hillsborough disaster.

Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the PFA, sparked outrage after making the 'insensitive parallel' in a Radio 5 Live interview following the announcement that Evans' move to Oldham had collapsed.

The disgraced striker, 26, apologised to the woman he raped for the first time today, but maintained he is 'innocent' of attacking her in a Rhyl hotel room in 2011 and said he will appeal the conviction.

Mr Taylor, 70, told BBC Radio 5 Live: 'He would not be the first person or persons to have been found guilty and maintained their innocence and then been proved right.

'If we are talking about things in football we know what happened, what was alleged to have happened at Hillsborough and it's now unravelling and we are finding it was very different to how it was portrayed at the time. Indeed by the police at the time.'

Friday, January 16, 2015

Former Ukip candidate and ex-Marine faces jail for emailing racist slurs and picture of pig's head to mosque

A PICTURE of a pig is offensive? Muslims must hate Peppa pig

A former UK Independence Party candidate faced jail today for emailing racist slurs to a mosque and posting a photograph of a pig’s head on Facebook.

Ex-Marine Ian Couch, 54, sent the offensive messages in a drunken rage after becoming angry at TV reports of the beheading of journalist James Foley by ISIS militants.

Couch, a former counter terrorism operative, also posted racial slurs on Facebook alongside a picture of a pig’s head he kept in his fridge. Police seized the head when they raided his home in Great Shelford, Cambridgeshire, and Couch claimed he had bought it for his dogs.

The court heard Couch made anti-Muslim comments such as ‘your religion is a disgrace’, ‘how many heads do you have as a trophy’ and ‘the sooner we destroy Islam the better’.

And among his posts on Facebook was one that said: ‘Isn't it funny that they can cut off women and children’s heads but can't touch a pig's?’

Couch denied two counts of sending offensive messages and claimed he had a right to freedom of expression.

But magistrates rejected this in Cambridge last Thursday and told Couch he faced jail. Presiding magistrate Marisa Johnson said his actions were ‘indefensible’.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

UK: Disturbing video shows children as young as five singing racist song to the tune of 'if you're happy and you know it clap your hands'

It is HUGELY incorrect in Britain to abbreviate "Pakistani"

A disturbing racist video has emerged of three girls aged between five and seven singing 'if you all hate p**** clap your hands' to the tune of a popular children's song.

The three blonde children are shown sitting in a circle clapping their hands while singing the hate chant for the amusement of an adult filming them.

During the racist song a toddler boy wanders around the room while the little girls sing the offensive phrase to the tune of 'If you're happy and you know it clap your hands'.

The video, believed to have been produced in the Greater Manchester area since the New Year, has sparked outrage online and among anti-racism charities.

It has been slammed by anti-racism educational charity Show Racism the Red Card, who use football to stamp out intolerance in the wider society.

A spokesman for the charity said: 'The fact these young people are using such an offensive term so freely openly shows a lack of understanding about the nature of the term from their guardians.

'The fact young people are using this word doesn't come as a surprise given a study from Show Racism the Red Card Wales found a quarter of people believe calling a Pakistani person a paki was acceptable.'

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Atlanta fire chief terminated following book controversy

Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran — the subject of recent controversy over remarks made in a self-published religious book — has been terminated from the Atlanta Fire Rescue Department, Mayor Kasim Reed announced today.

Cochran returned to work today following a month-long suspension for comments in his 2013 book “Who Told You That You Are Naked?” Many criticized the book as promoting discriminatory and anti-gay views, while Cochran’s suspension — and now termination — has since become the focus of a fight over “religious liberty.”

Reed stressed that his decision is not because of Cochran’s faith: “His religious (beliefs) are not the basis of the problem. His judgment is the basis of the problem.”

The mayor said though Cochran consulted the city’s ethics officer before publishing the book, Nina Hickson did not grant approval.

Cochran has a differing account. He said he received verbal clearance from Hickson to publish the book, and therefore didn’t believe he needed permission from Reed as city law allowed it.

What’s more, Cochran said he gave a copy of the book to Reed’s executive assistant in January 2014, and that the mayor later confirmed receiving it. Cochran also said he was told not to speak to the media, specifically, about his suspension. Cochran has spoken publicly about the matter to religious groups.

Cochran said it was not his intent to be “hurtful to anyone” when expressing his religious views in his book, which he acknowledged passing out to some members of the fire department.

“LGBT citizens deserve the right to express their beliefs regarding sexual orientation, and deserve to be respected for their positions without hate and discrimination,” he said. “But Christians also have the right to express their beliefs regarding sexual orientation and be respected for their position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.”

Among what city leaders said were troubling remarks in the fire chief’s book was a description of homosexuality as a “perversion” akin to bestiality and pederasty.

Monday, January 12, 2015

British Censors Don't Like a Thigh Gap

"The UK Just Took a Bold Stand Against Unfair Beauty Standards the US Never Would," reports millennial news site Mic. As you might imagine, Mic author Maureen Shaw and I disagree on whether the latter is a good or bad thing. The "bold stand" taken by British officials was ordering retailer Urban Outfitters to remove a photo from its website because of too much space between the model's thighs.

Colloquially, this is known as "thigh gap", something (or its absence, really) that has been the envy of Tumblr anorexics, scourge of body-image crusaders, and subject of ample beauty-blogger think pieces over the past few years. The British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) apparently felt this Urban Outfitter model's thigh gap was too large.

In a December 31 ruling, the agency decreed that "the ad must not appear again in its current form" and Urban Outfitters must "ensure that the images in their ads were responsibly prepared." The agency was responding to a complainant "who believed that the model in the picture was unhealthily thin" and the ad "irresponsible and harmful." In upholding this complaint,

The ASA considered that the model was very thin, and noted, in particular, that there was a significant gap between the model's thighs, and that her thighs and knees were a similar width. We considered that the model looked underweight in the picture.

In a response, Urban Outfitters suggested that the model was "naturally tall and slim", not unhealthy, noting that she had appeared in many other ads and had a 23.5-inch waist. Mic's Shaw—who applauds the ASA's decision and writes that "the U.S. needs to follow the U.K.'s lead"—scoffs that "Urban Outfitters may consider a 23.5-inch waist normal," but "the U.K.'s National Health Service cites a healthy waistline as one up to 31.5 inches."

While that may be true, it's also perfectly possible to be healthy with a 23-inch waist; and while weight and waistline are obviously related, waist size is also partially a product of body shape and bone structure. The same is true for thigh gap. Some girls and women are built in such a way that even when very thin, they won't have much thigh gap; others would have to put on an unhealthy amount of weight not to have one.

And for people whose goal is ostensibly making women feel okay about being individuals with all sorts of body types, it seems rather counterintuitive and insulting to say that women naturally prone to thigh gap are freaks who must be banned from our view, no? Like the "real women have curves" campaign, what purports to be a pro-woman message only continues to emphasize which body attributes are more socially acceptable than others.

Ganesha is the Lord of success and destroyer of evils and obstacles. He is also worshipped as the god of education, knowledge, wisdom and wealth. So I don't see what is wrong with promoting that. I have a large statue of Ganesha in my entrance hall, as a a matter of fact. Various Indians have seen it but all have been merely amused

A brewery on Sydney's northern beaches is facing renewed criticism from some Hindus that the company reneged on an agreement to remove an insensitive label from its ginger beer.

Brookvale Union, which shares staff with the 4 Pines Brewing Company in Manly, faced calls in late 2013 to redesign the ginger beer packaging and remove an Indian-themed design that appeared to show a figure with the head of Hindu god Ganesh and the body of the goddess Lakshmi.

At the time, the brewery apologised and announced the label would be redesigned. Alterations were made to the design, which still has an Indian style and depicts an elephant's head on the body of a woman.

Yadu Singh, a Sydney-based cardiologist and the president of the Indian Australian Association of NSW, believes the changes didn't go far enough and he is calling on businesses to remove the product from their shelves.

4 Pines Brewing Company co-founder Jaron Mitchell said the labels were redesigned on the advice of Dr Singh and other Australian Hindus who identified aspects of the design that needed to be changed.

Mr Mitchell said the elephant head depicted on the label was redesigned to remove any resemblance to the god Ganesh. "It's just like an animal, it's not a godlike kind of a face," Mr Mitchell told Fairfax Media.

The revised figure has only two arms, and the image of a cow, which is a sacred animal in the Hindu faith, was replaced with a bowl of fruit.

"We're certainly not in the business of offending people," Mr Mitchell said. "It's certainly not a unified Hindu opinion [that the image is offensive]. I know that because I've had Hindus say, 'look, don't listen to these guys'."

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Britain imprisons several women every year for false rape claims so doubts about a convicted rapist's guilt in Britain are entirely reasonable. There is no doubt that the sex in this case was consensual but the court held that the woman was too drunk to give consent, a very flimsy verdict

Business Secretary Vince Cable has been forced to rebuke one of his top Whitehall aides for claiming Ched Evans was 'probably not guilty' of rape - despite the footballer being tried and convicted for the crime.

Andy Ormerod-Cloke, Private Secretary to the Business Secretary, made the controversial remark on his personal Twitter account while watching BBC One's Question Time last night.

The Oxford University graduate, said he would 'query how many have looked at the details rather than symbolism of rapist-footballer'. He added: 'If guilty then never a footballer again – role model argument – but on the facts of the case, probably not guilty.'

As a civil servant Mr Ormerod-Cloke is not supposed to post messages online about controversial topics.

Friday, January 09, 2015

A private taxi firm's advert featuring a middle aged overweight woman with the caption 'if I start to look sexy, book a taxi' has been slammed as sexist.

West Quay Cars in Southampton said they had put up the controversial poster as part of their festive campaign to stop people drinking and driving and to take a cab instead.

But feminist campaigners said the advert, which features the voluptuous lady in a suggestive pose next to the warning 'don't make bad decisions because you have had one too many' was sexist and are urging a boycott of the company.

One campaigner, who wished to remain unnamed, said: 'I was horrified to see the recent posters by West Quay cars which featured a middle-aged larger woman with a slogan on it. 'It is disgusting that in 2015 sexism is still alive, people shouldn't be making a profit over negative self-body image.'

But bosses at West Quay Cars - who designed the posters themselves - said they were disappointed with the negative feedback and denied the company is sexist.

A stockbroker has been sacked and forced to apologise after tweeting: 'Think I just hit a cyclist. But Im late for work so had to drive off lol.'

The apparent boast by Rayhan Qadar - which police are investigating - was made on his Twitter account under the name of 'Ray Pew' at 8.30am yesterday.

It prompted a storm from other Twitter users, who reported the 21-year-old Cardiff University graduate to police and called for him to apologise.

Despite saying it was a 'bad joke' and insisting he had not hit a cyclist, he was promptly sacked from his job at Bristol-based Hargreaves Lansdown, which sells shares and investment funds.

A spokesman said: 'One of our employees has failed to conduct themselves to the standards we expect of our staff. 'We find these online comments totally unacceptable. 'Upon becoming aware of this issue we have terminated this person's employment with immediate effect.'

Thursday, January 08, 2015

A Jamaican-born lollipop man who was sacked for calling a black colleague 'King Kong' during a row over a parking meter has questioned how he can be a racist at an employment tribunal.

The Central London Employment Tribunal heard the incident in July 2013 erupted after Mr Seymour was speaking loudly on his phone in the town hall's reception area ahead of a meeting.

He claimed he had been trying to arrange a refund because a parking meter had swallowed £4 of his change when council worker Johnson Akinmoyede 'interrupted his conversation'.

The court heard that when Mr Akinmoyede asked him to keep his voice down, Mr Seymour replied: 'Who are you, King Kong? I will break you, move away from me,' reports the Evening Standard.

Mr Seymour, from Kentish Town in north London, was escorted from the building by two security officers for the alleged 'racially abusive and threatening behaviour'.

However, he claims the term 'King Kong' was not racist and in a statement by Christopher Nicola, manager of the council's Smarter Travel Team, it was a 'Caribbean thing'.

'He [Mr Seymour] asked how could it be racially abusive if you say something to someone of the same complexion, and that the way they were speaking was a Caribbean thing and they talk like that to each other all the time

Speaking at the time, Mr Seymour said: 'It was not racial. He was getting all angry so it was like he was acting like he was a big strong gorilla, so that's why I called him King Kong.

Wednesday, January 07, 2015

I have received from W. Lindsay Wheeler an account of his experiences with a site called Wikinfo which is run by Fred Bauder, who is Jewish. Lindsay is (or was) an assistant editor with the site.

As you can see here, Lindsay puts up a direct quote from Hitler which claims that democracy leads to authoritarianism.

That is probably one of the few things that Hitler got right. The tremendous reach of government into all our lives today is pretty much on a par with what Hitler and Mussolini achieved. Even the hostility to Jews is steadily growing in the Western world. And as for failed wars, we have some of those too. And when the President of the United States ignores the U.S. constitution, as Obama does over immigration etc., where does it stop?

But such thoughts must not be thought. Lindsay thinks them and claims that "mixed government" (i.e. a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy) rather than democracy is the best. But quoting Hitler to support his beliefs was beyond the pale to Fuehrer Bauder. He sent the following to Wheeler:

is not acceptable on Wikinfo. Wikinfo is not value free. Democracy can only be suppressed in the modern world by mass murder. You are banned permanently. All articles you have published here will be removed, as resources permit." Fred Bauder

Any guesses that Bauder is a Leftist? Censorship is a knee-jerk reaction to them. Perhaps Wikinfo should be renamed Wikipropaganda

For those who are unaware of it Fuehrer is the German word for "leader"

"La Raza" mean "The race" -- the supposed Mexican race. Her treatment of the ADL as an authority on hate speech is a bit like Goebbels quoting Hitler as an authority on the Jews. The Leftward lean of the ADL is well-known

Janet Murguia, president of the liberal National Council for La Raza, took credit for Lou Dobbs's departure from CNN during a Monday interview on C-SPAN's Q&A program, and repeated a six-year-old charge that the host directed "hate speech" against Hispanics and immigrants. Murguia claimed that Dobbs forwarded a "negative mindset – but more than anything else, a pejorative mindset" about Latinos using "terms that the ADL had said were hate speech terms."

"We had worked with the Anti-Defamation League at the time, who had done series of research to show that certain words that Lou Dobbs was using had been used previously to create a different mindset around people – when they're referred to in terms related to animals – and he had been using the word 'hordes' and other types of – of labels around the Latino community. It creates a negative mindset – but more than anything else, a pejorative mindset – and one that, I think, actually tries to change the views that people have – when, really, we should be talking about the issues. And for us, it's one thing to about the issues, but he was doing it in a way where it really clearly was changing the perceptions that people had of Hispanics – with terms that the ADL had said were hate speech terms."

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

This week, the respected Spectator magazine revealed that one of our top cancer surgeons, Professor Joseph Meirion Thomas, had been gagged from writing about the NHS.

The move came after a bid by senior figures within the medical establishment to remove him from his job. His ‘sin’ had been to write four comment pieces for the Daily Mail. The first two, about health tourism, argued calmly that the sheer weight of foreigners using the NHS was making it economically unviable.

The third explained how the preponderance of female doctors in the NHS was becoming a long-term problem because, after an expensive training, many were leaving to have families, often returning only in a part-time capacity.

But it was Mr Thomas’s fourth opinion piece, which questioned whether Britain’s modern GP system — with doctors increasingly unavailable to patients — was fit for purpose, that triggered the most vitriol.

The arrogance, viciousness and biliousness of the attack on Mr Thomas — not to mention his critics’ contempt for free speech — will astonish many readers . . .

The backlash began late on the night of November 18, just a few minutes after the first edition of the Daily Mail rolled off the presses carrying a comment article criticising Britain’s GP system by internationally renowned cancer surgeon Professor Joseph Meirion Thomas.

It was on Twitter, inevitably, where outrage started. A Left-wing medical blogger called Frozen Warning circulated a link to the piece, declaring: ‘GPs, prepare for battle. Prof J. Meirion Thomas, [the] most arrogant surgeon in the UK, is at it again.’

His call to arms was soon joined and over the ensuing days several hundred highly critical tweets, many of them peppered with gratuitous personal insults against the 68-year-old surgeon, were publicly shared by NHS staff.

Typical was the comment of Catherine Beanland, a GP from Ludlow, who branded Thomas’s article ‘unprofessional, ignorant, biased’. Damien Roland, a consultant at the University of Leicester NHS Trust, accused it of ‘demonstrating tribalism and arrogance’.

Rachel Imrie, a trainee GP from Edinburgh, called him a ‘gigantic, out of touch, idiot!’. Dave Jones, a Welsh doctor, meanwhile, said that Thomas ‘comes out with some c**p’.

America and the West are subjected nonstop to a barrage of hate speech from the intelligentsia. Hate speech leads to hate crimes, here as everywhere. Few people have faced up to the extent of the hate crimes and hate speech against the West. The murder of the two New York City policemen Saturday is only the tip of the iceberg.

Literally thousands of inciters have propagated a dishonest storyline of widespread police violence against blacks. And what we’ve seen in recent months is only the current instance in a long history of incitement against the West.

A view of the West as enemy is cultivated in universities across the country as the cutting edge of moral thinking, with full rein given to a very un-academic manner of speech, replete with the colorful language of vilification. From these heights, the same attitudes inevitably seep into other venues, including textbooks for much younger students.

And so, on issue after issue, year after year, the media speak in a language of blaming the West and identifying with anger against the West.

The unseen iceberg of hate crimes against the West is similarly massive, on a scale that few can imagine. 9/11 was one incident among many around the world. Domestically, unacknowledged hate crimes in the street — violent crimes motivated in part by the hate that is cultivated against mainstream society — number more than half a million a year.

The primary ground and origin of hate lies in the very subculture that criticizes “hate” most often, because it is uses “hate” as a label for smearing those it doesn’t like.

Viewed in full, hate crimes against the West — against Americans, against Westerners, and against groups and religions identified as pro-Western — run into the millions.

If the white victims of interracial violence were shown on nationwide TV every day — with posters that proclaimed White Lives Matter! — the current form of incitement would collapse of its own weight.

The conclusion is inescapable: The incitement depends on the media’s massive deception of the public, deception about the plain facts about who is usually killing whom. This deception also includes, in nearly every specific instance recently highlighted nationwide, deception about the weight of the evidence about who is guilty.

Monday, January 05, 2015

They could be Presbyterians, I guess. And that attack on the Taj Mahal hotel in Bombay did not happen, of course. I've stayed at the Taj so the attack was shocking news to me

Outrage has been sparked in India after men playing the roles of terrorists in security drills were dressed as Muslims.

A video of a drill, which was broadcast on Indian media websites, shows five policemen capturing and then pinning down three men in white knitted skullcaps before bundling them into jeeps in the Surat district of Gujarat.

The drills are being carried out across Gujarat following intelligence reports that two high-profile events - Pravasi Bharatiya Divas and the Vibrant Gujarat Investors Summit - could be a the target of terror attacks.

Speakers at the summit in January will include U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as well as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

'Mock drills were carried out in 10 to 15 locations,' Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pradeep Sejul told television network NDTV.

'This should not have happened; it was an avoidable mistake. 'We assure you that if someone deliberately made the mistake, we will take action against them.'

Kamal Faruqui of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board called the mock drill 'atrocious and highly condemnable'.

'It is profiling the Muslim community which is very bad. They should apologise, otherwise they should be taken to the court,' Faruqui told NDTV.

In a Saturday blog that immediately attracted criticism for its racist tonality, Surber wrote:

“This summer I had an epiphany as I watched packs of racists riot in Ferguson, Missouri, in support of a gigantic thug who was higher than a kite when he attacked Ferguson Police Department Officer Darren Wilson, who unfortunately had to put this animal down.”

Within 24 hours, Surber appended the post: “I made a factual error. Michael Brown was not an animal but a man. Big. Brutal. High. His death was a justifiable homicide and not a putting down.”

McElhinny contends the newspaper needed to disassociate itself from Surber even though the controversial commentary appeared on the columnist’s personal website:

Sunday, January 04, 2015

What do rap lyrics, ultrasounds, giant rats, condoms, campaign donations, and Game of Thrones merchandise have in common? In 2014, all have been the subject of First Amendment controversy. I think it's safe to say that this has been an interesting year for free speech.

That this is the sort of banal statement one could make almost every year doesn't make it any less true for 2014, and perhaps it's been even more true than usual this year. "I have to say, when I go through the years, every year presents incredibly unique aspects of how we chose to communicate, gather and worship,” Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute and its First Amendment Center, told Watchdog.org recently. But Policinski also admitted that free speech questions raised this year have been a particularly interesting bunch.

Let's look back on a handful of them, shall we? From the significant to the novel to the merely strange, here are 22 First Amendment cases from 2014—some settled, some ongoing—that are worth revisiting:

Money Talks: In McCutcheon v. FEC—one of if not the biggest speech case of the year—the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal limits on the total amounts an individual can contribute to political committees and candidates in one election cycle. "The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candi­dates it may endorse," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court's opinion.

Skim Milk by Any Other Name: Florida resident Mary Lou Wesselhoeft is fighting a state rule barring her business, Ocheesee Creamery, from labeling the skim milk it produces as skim milk. Florida law requires skim milk to be artificially enhanced with vitamin A; because Wesselhoeft doesn't do so, the state says she must label it "Non-Grade 'A' Milk Product, Natural Milk Vitamins Removed". With the help of the Institute for Justice, Ocheesee Creamery is challenging the requirement, which it claims violates the businesses' right to "engage in truthful speech about its lawful skim milk."

No Glove, No Love: Concluding a years-long battle this December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a Los Angeles County statute requiring condom use in porn does not violate filmmakers' freedom of expression. "The condom mandate survived intermediate scrutiny because it was only a de minimis effect on expression, was narrowly tailored to achieve the substantial governmental interest of reducing the rate of sexually transmitted infections, and left open adequate alternative means of expression," the three-judge panel ruled.

Scabby Strikes Back: In November, a New York district court ruled that labor union protesters could display a giant, inflateable rat—affectionately known as "Scabby"—without violating a "no strike" clause in its collective bargaining agreement. "[T]he defendants’ peaceful use of a stationary, inflatable rat to publicize a labor protest is protected by the First Amendment," the court stated.

So Authentic It's Criminal: Do violent rap lyrics constitute legit threats? The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments for and against this idea in the case of aspiring rapper Anthony Elonis. "Elonis ran afoul of federal law by posting graphic and violent revenge fantasies that centered on him murdering his estranged wife, murdering his employer and co-workers (those posts got him fired), and eventually killing the F.B.I. agent sent to investigate him," Damon Root reported in early December. As a result, Elonis was convicted on four counts of transmitting "communications containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another" and sentenced to 44 months in prison. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to uphold the conviction.

Meanwhile, San Diego artist Tiny Doo (aka Brandon Duncan) is fighting charges of promoting gang activity and violence with his rap album "Street Life." Reason TV's Paul Detrick, who has been following these issues closely, notes that "Duncan is just the latest rapper to have his music used against him in a criminal proceeding, a troubling trend that only seems to be increasing across the country."

But in a bit of good news on this front, the New Jersey Supreme Court in August nullified the verdict of a man whose rap lyrics were used to supply "motive and intent" in a murder case against him. The court ordered a new trial on the grounds that "the violent, profane, and disturbing rap lyrics authored by defendant constituted highly prejudicial evidence against him that bore little or no probative value as to any motive or intent behind the attempted murder offense with which he was charged." Unless such material has "a direct connection to the specifics of the offense," prosecutors shouldn't use it as evidence, the court ruled.

See No Handguns: A group of California gun sellers are challenging a state law that bans gun stores from displaying images of handguns if they can be seen from outside the premises. Stores are allowed to post signs featuring rifles, and they're allowed to use handgun imagery in print advertising. Lawyers argue that the seemingly arbitrary prohibition of on-premise signs featuring handguns is a violation of the First Amendment.

Buffer Zones Rebuffed: In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-abortion activist Eleanor McCullen, who argued that a Massachusetts law creating a 35-foot anti-protest buffer zone around abortion clinics was an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of expression. Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed that such buffer zones were not illegal per se but that this particular law wasn't narrowly tailored enough to suffice. "For a problem shown to arise only once a week in one city at one clinic, creating 35-foot buffer zones at every clinic across the Commonwealth is hardly a narrowly tailored solution," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Game of Thrones Gaffe: In January, a New Jersey community college professor posted a picture of his daughter on Google+. In the photo, the young girl was wearing a Game of Thrones t-shirt featuring the words "I will take what is mine with fire and blood." Bergen Community College adminstrators took this as the professor making a threat, suspended him without pay, and ordered him to see a psychiatrist. Months later, the college acknowledged that it "may have lacked basis to sanction" him for the shirt and "potentially violated (his) constitutional rights, including under the First Amendment."

Truthiness Win: In September, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in favor of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List in its challenge to a state law banning "false" political speech. In 2010, SBA List was charged with violating the law via billboards opposing the reelection of Democratic state Rep. Steve Driehaus. The district court declared the state law an unconstitutional violation of free speech, noting that "Lies have no place in the political arena and serve no purpose other than to undermine the integrity of the democratic process," but "at times, there is no clear way to determine whether a political statement is a lie or the truth. What is certain, however, is that we do not want the Government (i.e., the Ohio Elections Commission) deciding what is political truth—for fear that the Government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide."

Camera-Shy Cops Lose: This summer, a federal judge allowed a civil suit brought by Texas activist Antonio Buehler, who was arrested seveal times for taking pictures of police officers in action, to go forward. The decision noted "a robust consensus of circuit courts of appeals" that "the First Amendment encompasses a right to record public officials as they perform their official duties." In October, a trial court found Buehler not guilty on criminal charges related to one of the arrests.

Unconstitutional Ultrasounds: In late December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down a North Carolina law requiring physicians to perform an ultrasound, display a sonogram, and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions. Because the intent of these directives is ideological in nature they represent compelled speech, the court ruled, and are thus in violation of the First Amendment.

No Accounting for Arousal: When a Texas appeals court struck down a state ban on taking "upskirt" photos in September, the decision was met by much outrage in the national news media. But the law, which criminalized "improper photography or visual recording" in public places "with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of any person" was unconstitutionally broad, with the potential to ban all sorts of harmless public photography. "Banning otherwise protected expression on the basis that it produces sexual arousal or gratification is the regulation of protected thought," the court noted, "and such a regulation is outside the government’s power."

Prostitution Pre-Crime: In 2013, Arizona resident Monica Jones was arrested for "manifesting prostitution", a crime that doesn't require one to actually have sex for money or even offer to have sex for money but merely look, make gestures, or otherwise behave in a manner that police deem sufficiently suspicious (this includes asking a cop if they are a cop). This year Jones, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, is challenging the state statute, asking the Arizona Supreme Court to strike down the "unconstitutionally vague" rule as a violation of the First Amendment.

Fighting Free-Speech Zones: In January 2014, University of Hawaii at Hilo student Merritt Burch attempted to hand out pocket Constitutions at a student event but was barred from doing so by a campus administrator. The school later told Burch she was only allowed to pass out Constitutions in the university's "free speech zone," a tiny area on the edge of campus. With the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Burch and another student challenged the university's policy in Hawaii's U.S. District Court, alleging that it "unconstitutionally restricts access to open areas on campus by requiring students to seek permission to speak at least seven business days in advance and by limiting the areas where students may engage in spontaneous expressive activities to only 0.26 percent of UH Hilo's 115-acre campus." In early December, the University settled with the students, agreeing to revise its speech policies system-wide to allow for free expression and the distribution of literature in "all areas generally available to students and the community."

Keep Parody Legal: This summer, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of 29-year-old Jon Daniel, the creator of a Twitter account that parodied the mayor in his hometown of Peoria, Illinois. Upon learning about the account, the real Peoria Mayor ordered local law enforcement to raid Daneil's home and tried to have Daniel charged with falsely impersonating a public official.

License to Editorialize: In May, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the state's Department of Motor Vehicles erred in prohibiting a resident from getting a vanity license plate that said "COPSLIE."

Frack Attack: In 2011, environmental activist Steve Lipsky was sued for defamation by fracking company Range Resources after Lipsky posted YouTube videos and made statements to local news criticizing fracking. This December, the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments to decide whether Lipsky's comments are protected by the First Amendment. "Range has a right to protect its reputation, but the speech they’re complaining about is protected speech," Lipsky’s lawyer Joe Sibley said. "If we’re going to allow companies to sue people for defamation every time they don’t like what’s being said, then that basically allows corporations to silence public participation."

Boobies Bans: In March, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a case from a Pennsylvania school district seeking to ban students from wearing "I ♥ boobies" bracelets as part of a breast-cancer awareness campaign. The denial let stand a 2013 appellate court finding in favor of the students on First Amendment grounds.

In August, however, a federal judge in Indiana sided with a Fort Wayne school district that banned the bracelets. The ACLU of Indiana had challenged the school's decision, arguing that students had a free speech right to wear the bracelets. U.S. District Judge Joseph VanBokkelen disagreed, ruling that high school students were not mature enough to handle the bracelets' message.

Over-protecting Privacy: In March, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned a state law making it a felony to record public officials without their permission, even as they're performing public duties. The ban "criminalizes a wide range of innocent conduct," including "the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private: a loud argument on the street, a political debate on a college quad, yelling fans at an athletic event, or any conversation loud enough that the speakers should expect to be heard by others," noted the justices in a unanimous decision. The court concluded that the eavesdropping ban "burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate state interest in protecting conversational privacy."

Friday, January 02, 2015

Sugar Puffs rapped by advertising watchdog for suggesting that its 'honey goodness' was healthy for children

The Honey Monster has been slapped down by advertising watchdogs for suggesting honey is good for children.

The cereal that the character promotes, Sugar Puffs, has been banned from claiming it contains 'honey goodness' – as honey is just as bad for the body as sugar.

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the boast amounts to a bogus health claim.

Sales of honey are soaring, apparently because of the belief that as a natural product it is better for you. But health experts point out that once honey is consumed it behaves the same way in the body as sugar.

The advert on the cereal's website carried the claims: 'Yummy Honey Goodness For A Monsterfied Breakfast... 20% More Honey'.

This idea that the cereal – which contains 8.6 grams of sugar per 30g serving – was full of goodness was backed up by claims that it was low in fat and salt and a good source of fibre, vitamins and iron.

The ruling came after a complaint by the Children's Food Campaign, which said there was no specific authorised health claim to back up the honey goodness line.

Halo Foods, which owns the Honey Monster brand, said it had increased the amount of honey in the cereal while reducing the amount of sugar as part of a re-launch.

It said the website and the cereal's packaging provided detailed information about the ingredients and the company was 'transparent' about the sugar content of the product.

Halo Foods said it did not intend to make any specific health claims in association with honey and had therefore amended its website to remove any reference to the word goodness.

As recently as two years ago, the official advice was that fat is bad for you and carbohydrates (such as sugar) are good for you. The advice now is the exact reverse of that. It must set heads spinning for anybody who tries to do the right thing -- including the firm above.

Older people must learn that the normal expressions of their youth are now WRONG!

A deputy mayor is at the centre of a 'racism' storm after comparing flood prevention action to a 'n***** in a woodpile' at a council meeting.

Conservative councillor Michael Thierry used the term during a discussion at Ringwood Town Council in Hampshire, about clearing ditches to help alleviate problems with flooding.

But after making the remark, he caused fellow councillors to gasp and mutter before adding: 'My apologies to everybody concerned. It was not intentional.

Following the meeting, Ringwood mayor Councillor Barbara Woodifield said she and her fellow councillors were 'appalled' by the comment and admitted she had spoken to Councillor Thierry about the incident.

She said: 'It is extremely regrettable that Councillor Thierry made such a comment and it in no way reflects any of the opinions and views of Ringwood Town Council, its councillors or its staff.

'That said, Councillor Thierry is most contrite and has apologised unreservedly for any upset caused to those present and those people who will now read this article - it was an uncharacteristic ill-thought-out comment rather than any malicious intent.'

The phrase is a dated figure of speech or metaphor used to describe a hidden fact or problem. It originated in the American deep south in the mid-19th century and was used to describe fugitive slaves who hid in piles of firewood as they fled north to Canada.

Katie Hopkins has been shopped to the police for hate crimes against overweight people. The controversial TV star was reported by a woman belonging to a 'fat activist' group during filming for her new programme on TLC, in which she gains and loses three stone in six months.

Katie was accused of the crime when she met up with the group of five women in London who all work independently as plus-size activists or diet bloggers, so that she could hear opposing views on her claims that 'fat people are lazy'.

Ms Szrodecki began to get upset after Katie questioned how she could be healthy because of the weight she was carrying.

The former Apprentice contestant told her: 'I’m looking at you and I’m making an assessment that it is not healthy to carry that much weight on your knees.'

Katie then turns her attention to another member of the group and asks her: 'Can I ask you something? And you, and you can answer it honestly, or not answer it at all, is why are you big?'

The woman replies: 'Because I eat too much.'

Ms Szrodecki then interjects and says to Katie: 'Do you not realise where you’re going with this? This is actually to do with a hate crime.'

Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse:Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Mohammad

The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said

"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."

Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"

One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson

"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn

Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.

The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.

Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it

A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.

Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.

Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human

Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?

If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862

Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?

The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand

Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."

"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica

Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here